WABESS - TOK Connections

Connecting Questions

How does a systems approach compare to the reductionist approach to conventional science?
How does methodology compare between these two approaches?
What are the benefits of using an approach that is common to other disciplines such as economics & sociology?

How does the role of instrumentation circumvent the limitations of perception?
Can environmental investigations and measurements be as precise or reliable as those in the physical science?
Why is this, and how does it affect the validity of the knowledge?
Applying similarly rigorous standards as are used in physics, for example, would leave environmentalists with very little they could claim as knowledge?
By insisting on a high degree of objectivity, would we miss out on a useful understanding of the environment?
Is a pragmatic or correspondence test of truth most appropriate in this subject area?

Can models reflect reality? Can they be used to make predictions?
What do the models of "natural capitol/income" and the "ecological footprint" add to the earlier concepts of "resources" and "carrying capacity"?
Is one model any more objective than the other? Is this a good thing?
With regard to the terms used, how does the language affect our understanding of the concept?
- for example: there is perhaps a sense that "natural capital" is something to be preserved, while "resources" are specifically there for human utilization.
- Similarly "ecological footprint" conjures an image of environmental threat from any growing population, whereas "carrying capacity" focuses on the maximum number that a population can reach

This topic raises some engaging issues of debate concerning the moral justification for exploiting species and the moral imperative for conserving them. Do other organisms have a right to moral consideration? How is this justified?
Do panda bears have a greater right then lichen?
What about the rights of "pest" or pathogenic organisms?
To what extent are these arguments based upon emotion and to what extent upon reason?
How does this affect their validity?

Most cases of non-point source pollution exemplify the intractable ethical problem of the "tragedy of the commons".
- An individual pollution a common resource suffers little themselves from their own pollution and yet may benefit considerably in other ways.
- Those that do not pollute are doubly penalized--they suffer the pollution, and yet gain no benefit from polluting the resource themselves
- There is a net advantage for any individual who does not pollute. As many individuals adopt the most advantageous attitude, this leads to a great deal of suffering for all.
This is the conundrum that underlies much of the difficulty in managing non-point source pollution of shared resources on both a local and an international scale.
One nation may gain considerably from non-compliance, especially while others comply, underlies much of the hesitancy in reaching international agreements on pollution strategies.
Consideration and comparison of how both deontological and utilitarian approaches to ethics address this issue
Role of international legislation compared to increasing public awareness in tackling the problem
Is a system of rules or appealing to the general good, the most effective way forward?

Challenges popular views of certainty within the sciences.
If the scientific community has access to such certainty, how can it be as publicly divided as it has been in this case?
What effect does a highly sensitive political context have on objectivity?
Can politicians exploit the ambiguity of conclusions coming from the scientific community to their own ends?

The whole topic is TOK based. Any knowledge, once it is put to use in either intellectual argument or practical application, tends to carry with it value-laden context. Even when the data itself is highly objective, the selection of the data is rarely value-free.